Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (60958)	12/10/2002 6:22:54 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

We can win in Iraq, but only if Bush prepares properly By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN SYNDICATED COLUMNIST Tuesday, December 10, 2002 I am worried. And you should be, too. I am not against war in Iraq, if need be, but I am against going to war without preparing the ground in America, in the region and in the world at large to deal with the blowback any U.S. invasion will produce. But I see few signs that President Bush is making those preparations. The Bush team's whole approach was best summed up by a friend of mine: "We're at war -- let's party." We're at war -- let's not ask the American people to do anything hard. This can't go on. We are at war. We are at war with a cruel, militant strain of Islam, led by al-Qaida. We are at war with a rising tide of global anti-Americanism and we will probably soon be at war to disarm Iraq. There is no way we are going to win such a multidimensional conflict without sacrifices and radically new thinking. For me, the question is whether President Bush, having amassed all this political capital by effectively responding to 9/11, is going to spend any of it -- is going to ask Americans to do things that are really hard to win these wars over the long haul. Does Bush have a Sister Souljah speech in him? If not, if he is just going to rely on the Pentagon to fight this war -- and on Karl Rove to exploit it -- then we will reap nothing but tears. What would the president tell the American people if he were preparing them for this multidimensional war? He would tell the American people that this war could cost over a trillion dollars, and no one should think that we're going to be able to use Iraqi oil to pay for it. It will be paid for by our Treasury -- and that means not just changing the faces of the Bush economic team but also re-examining the surplus-squandering tax cuts at the center of the Bush fiscal policy. He would tell the American people that he is embarking on a Manhattan project to increase fuel efficiency and slash the cost of alternative energy sources to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Yes, it will take time, but gradually it will make us more secure as a nation, it will shrink the price of oil -- which is the best way to trigger political change in places like Saudi Arabia -- and it will provide the alternative to Kyoto that Bush promised the world but never delivered. He would tell the American people that we can no longer afford our selfish system of farm subsidies and textile protectionism. It is a system that tells developing nations they must open their borders to what we make, but we won't give them full access to our markets for what they make: farm goods and garments. If nations like Pakistan continue to live in poverty, if their people can only afford religious schools that teach only the Quran, then we will continue to live in fear. If our national security interests lie in their development, and their development requires access to our markets, we need to open our markets and live what we preach. He would tell the Palestinians that the United States intends to cut off all assistance and diplomatic contacts until they get rid of their corrupt tyrant, Yasser Arafat, because no peace is possible with him. He would tell Ariel Sharon that unless he halts all settlement building -- now -- the United States will start cutting off Israel's economic aid. And he would tell both that he intends to put the Clinton peace plan back on the table as his plan. He would also tell all Arabs that America has one purpose in Iraq, once it is disarmed of dangerous weapons: to help Iraqis implement the U.N. Arab Human Development Report, which states that the failing Arab world can only catch up if it embraces freedom, modern education and women's empowerment. Finally, he would tell Karl Rove to take a leave of absence until September 2004 so that nothing the president does in this war will be perceived as being done for political gain. Friends, we are on the edge of a transforming moment for America in the world. If Bush uses his enormous mandate to prepare for war -- in a way that really deals with our political and economic vulnerabilities, increases our own staying power and convinces the world that we have a positive vision and are responsible global citizens -- there is a decent chance we can win at a reasonable cost. But if Bush simply uses his mandate to drive a hard-right agenda and indulge in more feel-good politics, the world will become an increasingly dangerous place for every American -- no matter what war we fight, no matter what war we win. Thomas L. Friedman is foreign affairs columnist for The New York Times. Copyright 2002 New York Times News Service. seattlepi.nwsource.com

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (60958)	12/10/2002 7:34:35 PM
From: Jim DuBois	Respond to of 281500

I believe 'Zakah' is one of the five pillars. One can earn bonus points with additional charity, which I think is 'Sadaqah.' But such a charitable view of potential motives is not nearly as fun as public flogging, and does not sell newspapers or magazines.

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (60958)	12/10/2002 7:40:38 PM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

This is the second article I've read on this subject that implies that Americans are poor, grudging, self-promoting givers, individually, collectively, or both. I say bs, and I say Sarah Whalen has a flake up her garage door. If she wants to defend Princess Haifa, fine, but it is not in any way necessary to insult or denigrate or dismiss the generosity and giving of average American citizens to do so. Thumbs down.

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (60958)	12/10/2002 7:50:31 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Say, Karen, taking a Saudi paper as a serious news source leads to a certain giggle factor. The Saudi princess sent many tens of thousands of dollars over a long period of time to a Jordanian (not Saudi) woman who turned many of them over to someone else to cash...even for the charitable, this sounds much closer to an extortion scheme than a legitimate charity. Inquiring minds want to know, wassup with that?